What happened to the idea of raising taxes on the uber-rich to help pay for infrastructure programs,

[lib_wit_it]

health care, etc.? We need to go pre-Reagan on their asses and, yes, redistribute the wealth. And I mean on the very top, so that no one who is even close to upper middle class gets touched. Just the very top hoarders. Far fewer to complain about it. (Not that the idiot poor RWers won't complain for the billionaires, but fuck 'em.)



Hell, even John McCain supports it. I'm sure he'd stand behind Obama, right? (Yeah, with a knife.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2JPbQOHEkY

Not to be melodramatic, but this may be our last chance before they just take everything and we'll have the masters in the upper class and the poverty-stricken, virtually enslaved, which will be us.

I think it's time for the new civil rights movement. It's got to be *that* big. Bigger. Social *and* economic justice for *all*!

Who will be our movement leaders? Who will be our voices in the government?

This is sure to be a freeper magnet. (SuffraUnrec city!)


Let the flame wars begin.

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Tax the rich? That's socialism,

you Goddam Nazi.

[TankLV]

7. You forgot your sarcasm thingy...again...

[Jackpine Radical]

23. Did you actually need it?

[lib_wit_it]

31. I didn't, but then I did just *assume.* You just don't look like a freeper to me! : )

[lib_wit_it]

14. Or, am I a Marxist? Then again, maybe I'm a commie. Damn, I'm having such an identity crisis! /m

[Jackpine Radical]

38. You're a Commie Fascist Nazi Marxist Socialist

and you don't love Jesus.

[lib_wit_it]

41. I wondered why Republicans hated me. I get it now!

[Autumn]

2. Fuck the flamers

K/R #5 Good post. What is sad is that the few leaders who are willing to be our voices are marginalized by the media and many "on our side".

[lib_wit_it]

19. It really is sad, and bertman in post #3 reminds us why our representatives don't stand up for us. I

never realized before how bad the money=speech problem is. And isn't the Supreme Court set to make a decision that could expand that bullshite? Can you imagine?! We'll have absolutely no say whatsoever.

[bertman]

3. What happened? Something called campaign contributions.

[lib_wit_it]

20. Word. Well, OK, actually two words. One nasty little phrase. /m

[xchrom]

4. it's probably in the same hole medicare for all is. nt

[yodermon]

5. The Bush tax cuts will expire in 2010. It's a start.

Bit slow, but a start.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

10. Are you SURE they will let them expire?

Just wondering...

[lib_wit_it]

17. I'm not holding my breath, but when the time comes, we need to let our voices be heard. /m

[Omar4Dems]

6. You first.

See how that works?

[lib_wit_it]

15. Nope. I don't. Perhaps you could actually make a point before expecting others to see it..

[TankLV]

8. Total Debt Forgiveness For Everyone! Set the thing at "ZERO" NOW!!!

The rich have more than enough of our money with 500% interest rates!

The world would see a period of Golden Years if this were done!

Everyone's debt WIPED OUT!!!

[lib_wit_it]

32. I am totally ready for that! Not for the rich, though. In one way or another...

they stole the money: Behind every great fortune is a great crime.

[shireen]

9. great post!

as i watch my co-workers concentrating intently in front of their computers, or the custodial staff meticulously cleaning during the evening after most people are gone, or the amazing chef and her staff at our workplace cafe who work very hard to create wonderful food, I wonder ... what's the worth of their work? As far as I am concerned, the work they do is far more valuable than whatever's done by any overpaid CEO. What are these obscenely-rich people doing to earn such outrageously large compensations (along with already ridiculously-high salaries!). It makes me sick .... :puke:

Something is very wrong with our financial system. And the idiots who scream "socialist!" have no idea what they're saying, just parroting what they were told to say ....

[lib_wit_it]

16. It's so true! There was some recent story on Colbert or Daily Show about super-fast high frequency

that quickly inflates the price of stocks, but creates no actual new wealth, as best I understand it. There's a story here that seems to be about the same practice: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/economy-watch/2009/08/sec_moves_to_ban_freshly_disco.html

I have to admit that I barely understand the whole Wall Street trading thing, but it just seems like high stakes gambling with other people's money. And you can totally fuck up everything and get a huge salary and bonuses on top.

The little people, you know, the millions who actually produce a product or perform a service for the Masters of the Universe, don't deserve prosperity. They should be grateful for a bunk in the servants' quarters or the company barracks.

[truedelphi]

21. Something is definitely wrong when the top 1% own

85 to 90 per cent of all the wealth. And then they are not taxed on it.

[tkarolewics711]

11. Why it is justified to tax the rich more

The wealthier you are, the more you actually use government and government services in order to secure your wealth. Let's say that there is one man that owns an international trucking company. He relies on countless systems of roadways, bridges and infrastructure in order to transport his product. He also relies on local, state and even federal law enforcement to protect his trucks from bandits and protect his employees and customers when getting to market. He would also rely on the countless regulatory agencies that keep his company from getting ripped off and providing for fair competition. He relies on an educated work force (educated through the public education system) to have some basic common sense and know how. ie. knowing how to read when you take your CDL. You can go on for countless examples.
Then when you take the employee of this same trucking company, you must consider that he enjoys the same government services, but on a smaller scale. He relies on fewer roads, fewer law enforcement, etc. in order to obtain his wealth.
In short, the more you earn, the more you rely on government systems and the more you should pay in taxes in order to support those systems. It is actually an investment in your self/company. In the Keynesian view of economics, the more you make, the more you should pay in taxes, the more you invest in the economy, the more money is redistributed, the more money is spent by the lower classes in not just product, but in taxes, the better the country gets and then you go back to the more you make and the process starts all over again.
The economy is a living organism, which you can compare to a tree. In order to the economy to be healthy, it must be fed. If you visualize the roots as the lower class, the trunk as the middle class and the branches as the upper class, you will see that the roots absorb the nutrients and water, which are passed on to the trunk (which by the way, support everything), and then to the branches, which grow the leaves. In nature the leaves will fall during the winter (hard times) and fertilize the soil and the roots. You must look at the leaves as the currency generated. If this process is interrupted, the tree will not be as healthy.

[lib_wit_it]

18. Right, yet I've never heard a Democrat make this point. It should be their mantra. The wealthy don't

care about the tree. They're way up in the top branches and won't notice until the trunk rots and falls down or we shake the fucking tree hard enough.

[tkarolewics711]

28. The funny thing is

If you tear the roots out of the tree, it will die, but if you saw off the branches, it will just grow new ones.

[lib_wit_it]

33. Damn. I've got a saw, but no ladder tall enough. We need...

the President and Congress to scale those heights.

[lildreamer316]

22. VERY well said!! Thank you for such a clear explanation.

Bookmarked; and may I share?

[tkarolewics711]

29. Definitely

[Uncle Joe]

25. Welcome to D.U. tkarolewics711.

:hi:

[tkarolewics711]

30. Thanks

[aquart]

12. I'm willing to compromise. 75%

We can run a damn fine country with that.

[lib_wit_it]

35. You have my vote! Welcome, Senator Aquart.

[yurbud]

13. great toon!

[lib_wit_it]

34. I first saw it here in someone's sig line and searched it out online. I think we should

all post and share it online. And, maybe make copies and post them all over town. We've got to get people ready for the end of the Bush cuts and, we can hope, for the rates to go up to at least something before Raygun decided Trickle Down was such a swell idea.

[Uncle Joe]

24. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, lib_wit_it.:thumbsup:

[lib_wit_it]

36. I've been thinking about this ever since *real* healthcare reform suddenly was made out to be

unaffordable. Didn't President Obama initially talk about taxes on the money grubbers as at least a partial payment for reform?

[snot]

26. As Warren Buffet said,

It's class warfare, my class is winning, but they shouldn't be. -- Warren Buffet, CNN Interview, May 25 2005, suggesting we need to raise taxes on the rich. (interview at http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/10/buffett/index.html )

[lib_wit_it]

37. Yes. Googling ~why the rich should pay more~ produces some good info, including a number of

references to Buffet's support, including this one from September of this year:
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/58129-buffett-to-meet-with-senate-dems

Buffett tells Dems rich need to pay more
By Alexander Bolton - 09/10/09 05:40 PM ET

Warren Buffett, the renowned investor and the world’s second richest man, told Senate Democrats that wealthy Americans need to pay higher taxes, giving Democrats something to mull as they address healthcare reform and soaring federal deficits.

Senate Democrats met with Buffett for more than an hour over lunch Thursday, peppering him with questions about the economy, said lawmakers in attendance.

“He said rich people are not paying enough taxes,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.). “It was interesting to see someone who is such an aggressive capitalist, who believes so much in our capitalist system, saying we’ve got the scales way too heavily toward people who are very, very wealthy.”

Buffett told lawmakers that because of the cuts to the capital gains tax passed under former President George W. Bush, he pays taxes at a lower rate than some of his company’s employees.

It is an argument the investor has made before. Buffett said he paid a 16.5 percent tax rate on all his income because the tax rate on investment dividends and long-term capital gains is only 15 percent.

By contrast, a single employee at Buffet’s firm, Berkshire Hathaway, who earns between $33,000 and $83,000 must pay a 25 percent federal income tax rate.

Sen. Ben Nelson, a centrist Democrat from Nebraska, said he wasn’t sure whether Buffett’s chat would embolden his colleagues to raise taxes. (Nelson constituents, give him a call!)

(continued: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/58129-buffett-to-meet-with-senate-dems)

[Igel]

27. The problem isn't the top rate.

It was the taxes collected from those in the top tax bracket.

It's confusing the law as written for the law in practice. An example, to make what I'm saying obvious as dirt. The speed limit is 65 mph on the interstate near where I live, everybody's required to have a license, insurance, and have their car properly inspected and registered, so obviously nobody goes over 65 mp, everybody has a license, insurance, and is driving a properly inspected and registered car. Right?

Uh, yeah. But. . . Some break the law--they speed, don't have a valid license, don't have insurance, don't drive a car that's on the road legally. Others don't meet the conditions I said had to hold, and yet don't break the law--EMS, police; others don't have a valid license, but a learner's permit; others drive a car that's failed inspection but are within the grace period for re-inspection, or have a transit permit. Violators are one thing, but there are a lot of loopholes.

The point is that over time the tax rate varies a lot, but that doesn't say a heck of a whole lot about what people actually *pay* in taxes. Over time the average amount collected per person, as a percentage of income, doesn't vary all that much. 35% or 95%, the average top-bracket taxpayer pays about the same in taxes. Sheltering and otherwise engaging in legal tax avoidance takes time and effort, and the greater the level of avoidance the greater the effort needed: You increase the tax rate past a certain amount, you trigger greater avoidance behaviors.

Most here "get it" when it comes to discussion of the corporate tax rate in the US. It's higher than in places like Ireland, so the RW argument is that it should be lowered. The LW adamantly points out that the *effective* tax rate, after loopholes and allowances, is fairly low--much lower than the tax rate on paper. Yet they fail to apply the same spot-on reasoning with personal tax rates, and continue to believe that the tax rate on paper was the tax rate paid, and then argue we should return to those heady days. Right? Uh, yeah.

Now, you could implement a high marginal top tax rate and disallow all ways of avoiding taxes. That was the AMT's rationale. (Of course, it only partially worked, and after a few years top earners found ways around much of it.) But then you're talking something that hasn't really been tried in the US before, so your historical analogy flops.

[lib_wit_it]

40. OK, then I'd like our government to do whatever it needs to do to get a lot more taxes paid by the

super rich. Whatever laws, whatever enforcement it takes, that's what needs to be done. And the money should be used, first off, to pay for implementing universal health-care for Americans.

P.S. What analogy?

[midnight]

39. I agree, it is time to reign in the free riders. We need a tax structure that

spreads the burden equally. Right now the working class is being nickled and dimed so the trust funders,bankers, and corporations can feel better about themselvs.

[Demeter]

42. It's Coming, Never Fear

Another year and that cake will be ready to eat.

[Flagg]

43. That cartoon really makes you realize what a moron Reagan was.